Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36896297›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2023

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations.

Andrea Lauretta, Giulia Montori, Gian Piero Guerrini

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer: MRI vs. CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea LaurettaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano IRCCS, Aviano 33081, Italy. andrea.lauretta@cro.it.
Giulia MontoriDepartment of General Surgery, Vittorio Veneto Hospital, ULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Vittorio Veneto 31029, Italy.
Gian Piero GuerriniHepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology and Liver Transplantation Unit, Policlinico-AUO Modena, Modena 41124, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena · ITCentro di Riferimento Oncologico · ITOspedale Civile di Vittorio Veneto · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a "watch and wait" approach.

Indexed as

Carcinoembryonic antigenComputed tomographyFollow-upRectal cancerRecurrenceSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID36896297
PMCPMC9988648
OpenAlexW4322216989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.